Yea idk about owned. It was back n forth & largely a nothing discussion cuz these shows try to take a 3 hour argument & work on 5 minutes of talking points vs having a real debate.

But yea the guy isn't wrong, the white shooter usually doesn't immediately have a motive & the brown shooter is a terrorist. Granted the brown shooter does seem to be a legit Muslim terrorist more often than not lately, but all these mfers are really terrorists we've just decided to make Muslim terrorism the real thing while other races committing random acts of violence is usually just a crazy person & they are already trying to aim this guy towards crazy vs being a terrorist.

That said jesus f#cking christ on a stick that Tucker guy is an annoying f#ck who gots a very whiny voice & way of talking.

I like Tucker but when he has someone that hits back with good points, he starts cutting them off and isn't open to hearing more of their issues.

O'Reilly is the same but worse.

Both had good points but the professor was right. White people aren't quick to call other white people terrorists when in fact it is terrorism. People will now be afraid or cautious when seeing a concert with buildings around, security will change, and other stuff to relieve people's fear of getting shot.

Motiveless shooter representitive of his country's population and lacking any religious affiliations isn't suspected of religious terrorism... Rational public reaction.

Muslim shooter is suspected of religious affiliations due to thousands killed by Islamic terrorism annually... Rational public reaction.

He is angry that his religious brethren have (intentionally) created a fearsome reputation for themselves and associated ethnic groups. He needs a scapegoat (lone gunmen who aren't Muslims). His whole argument is a non-starter.